> That's why you're paid by the hour, not by how much your effort contributes to the bottom line (supposing for a moment that that could be accurately quantified).
I'm not paid by the hour. Yes, my salary is quantified in a unit of time, but if you're lumping hourly and yearly wage jobs in together to contrast them with working on commission, you're ignoring a lot of details that make a huge difference in the actual experience people in their jobs, and my point is that I think even small details add up and make a difference in how fulfilled people feel in their jobs in the long run.
> When you become an employee you do agree to become a cog in a machine. You're not some independent artist making your own way in the world, you're working on someone else's project and following someone else's success criteria, along with a bunch of other people. An employee gives up a small amount of autonomy and self-determination in exchange for stability. If that's not what you want perhaps you should become an entrepreneur.
As far as I can tell, this is pretty much covered by the last part of my previous comment: just because the world works in a certain way that I can't change doesn't mean that I have to accept it as fair and not criticize it. I don't think it's hypocritical for me to make a choice based on the stability that it affords myself and my family but think it's unfair that people have to make choices like that in the first place. The fact that most companies unilaterally decide the terms of employment and employees have no actual power to negotiate is something I can call out as unfair even if I still end up accepting that it would cost me more to refuse to participate in it.
> No. But it does make those policies not unreasonable. It can't be unreasonable when so many other places have said policies. That the place you're at isn't currently one of them doesn't mean it can't be one in the future, nor does it mean that it changing would be unreasonable. You especially can't put on the surprised Pikachu face when so many companies are doing it. "Wha... What do you mean in this software company they're requiring people to return to the office like they're doing at all the other software companies? This is totally unexpected!"
I disagree that "everyone is doing it" makes it inherently reasonable. You're misconstruing my criticism as surprise. I'm not obligated to refrain from criticizing bad things because they're expected.
> I live in one such country, and most people would still rather negotiate than just be fired with severance, or even just bear with it and start looking for a new job. All severance does is make it so small and medium-sized companies can't fire a lot of people at once. It's still a bigger blow to the employee, even with severance.
You're certainly entitled to disagree with me about this. I don't find your claim that severance only has negative effects compelling though, and I'm entitled to disagree with your claim on this as well.
> To be honest, I'm not sure what your point is anymore. All I said was that if circumstances change and you and the other party can't come to an agreement, all that's left is to dissolve the business relationship. Everything else around that simple fact, such as the particular terms of the business relationship, seem to me largely inconsequential.
My point is that I think the way a lot of companies do things is unfair, and the fact that they do them doesn't inherently make them fair. If you think this is a pointless opinion, you're certainly welcome to ignore or criticize it, as you have been doing, but I don't happen to think your criticisms are particularly convincing.